On 4/28/15 1:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
More than five years have passed since Heikki posted this, and we still
>haven't found a solution to the problem -- which neverthless keeps
>biting people to the point that multiple "user-space" implementations of
>similar techniques are out there.
Yeah. The problem with solving this with an update is that a
concurrent "real" update may not see the expected behavior, especially
at higher isolation levels. Tom also complained that the CTID will
change, and somebody might care about that. But I think it's pretty
clear that a lot of people will be able to live with those problems,
and those who can't will be no worse off than now.
But that's the same thing that would happen during a real update, even
if it was just UPDATE SET some_field = some_field, no? Doesn't
heap_update already do everything that's necessary? Or are you worried
that doing this could be user-visible (which as long as it's a manual
process I think is OK)?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
